The Economics of OnlyFans: Most accounts make less than $145/mo • Hacker News Board

Re: The Economics of OnlyFans: Most accounts make less than $145/mo

#141

Post by _xnmw » Mon, Aug 09, 2021, 9:29 AM UTC

xnyan wrote: post #132

_xnmw wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are places where $136/month will easily cover rent in a cheaper town, or food. e.g., where I live, in Ukraine.

I lived in several cites in eastern Ukraine (Kharkiv, Sumy, Donetsk, Luhansk, Gorlovka, others) and I think the absolute cheapest apartment I lived in was a 1br in a bad part of Makeevka which was one of the cheaper towns I lived in, and that was $140 a month in 2007. Never saw prices that low again after 2008. I'm curious if rent prices have gone down since I lived there, or maybe I was just getting a foreigner tax?…

My ex-gf was paying $100/month for a ghetto studio in Mariupol last year, and a foreigner I know is paying $200/month for an old 1BR on the fringes of Kharkiv right now. Kommunalkas can be insanely cheap, I've heard of $30/month for student bunks in Kharkiv, but you have to be on the tuition roster. Prices in USD terms dropped significantly after the 2014 crash.

Re: The Economics of OnlyFans: Most accounts make less than $145/mo

#142

Post by webmobdev » Tue, Aug 10, 2021, 12:36 AM UTC

OnlyFriendsThwy wrote: post #131

webmobdev wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I just don't get the point of a blanket ban on OF people who market themselves this way The reason has been specified and is to the point: "... contribution is usually shallow and easy to see through. This pollutes the place with a low-effort content ..." - these OF advertisers are only interested in getting people to see their profile (as you rightly pointed out), not their posted content, because their intention…

>The reason has been specified and is to the point... It's a figure of speech, and I'm well aware of the ostensible justification, which is why the bulk of my comment is specifically addressing it, and you even recognize it as doing so. Do try to be charitable, if for no other reason than my profile lacking a promotional link :-p Since you've opened the door to lectures about "didn't you read this part of the comment…

People join and participate in reddit for the free "quality" content. Not for click-baits.

Let's be clear here - OF creators are looking for unsolicited free advertising.

And that's at the crux of the issue - both free online communities and subscription based paid online communities are competitors because both are in the business of content generation.

Free online communities make money from advertisements. So it is in their obvious interest to discourage all attempts, by anyone, of "free" advertisement. Especially their competitor!

OF creators are in the business of making and selling their content. Obviously it is not in their best interest to make their quality content available freely. As free quality content is anathema to their business, obviously there is absolutely no reason for any community to tolerate their attempts at free self-promotion.

The solution? If you want to make money, you have to spend some money - Just pay for a suitable ad in the free online communities and support them.

Re: The Economics of OnlyFans: Most accounts make less than $145/mo

#143

Post by OnlyFriendsThwy » Tue, Aug 10, 2021, 4:18 PM UTC

webmobdev wrote: post #142

OnlyFriendsThwy wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The reason has been specified and is to the point... It's a figure of speech, and I'm well aware of the ostensible justification, which is why the bulk of my comment is specifically addressing it, and you even recognize it as doing so. Do try to be charitable, if for no other reason than my profile lacking a promotional link :-p Since you've opened the door to lectures about "didn't you read this part of the comment…

People join and participate in reddit for the free "quality" content . Not for click-baits. Let's be clear here - OF creators are looking for unsolicited free advertising. And that's at the crux of the issue - both free online communities and subscription based paid online communities are competitors because both are in the business of content generation. Free online communities make money from advertisements. So it…

>Free online communities make money from advertisements. So it is in their obvious interest to discourage all attempts, by anyone, of "free" advertisement. Especially their competitor!

The mods of these communities aren't getting the money from reddit ads, so that doesn't apply.

>The solution? If you want to make money, you have to spend some money - Just pay for a suitable ad in the free online communities and support them.

Okay, and when reddit ads are trivially blocked, and platforms won't do OF ads, what does that leave? Have you thought this through?

Note: before you say "their content sucks", yes, I agree, sucky content should be removed. But the question here is where a submission that otherwise qualifies for the sub should be removed merely on the basis that the profile of the submitter links an OF page. Again, that's even when the submission itself doesn't link it.